Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

There is, so far, no evidence that Smith mentioned "Secret Mark" to any monk in 1958 or 1959.

Whether cleaning house or spending a day in silence, it may be fair not to consider you a liar, cheat, and horse thief, given that you may not be a horse thief.

... isn't a big deal. If the document always was in the monastery, who is Morton Smith?

Speaking of cleaning up, your act,
if the "declaration" knew of pre-1958 evidence, why didn't it cite it?
If you declare "Secret Mark" verses genuine
but the rest of Gospel of Mark non-genuine
how to pretend to combine these?

The Mar Saba letter has the plural here (iota, not sigma): https://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=169090#p169090 ... So the question of how Morton Smith interpreted the singular reading, which he published, is ...

You know when my maids come in to clean the house and I can't find something my immediate reaction is "those fucking maids threw out my ______." I am wrong 99% of the time. But that's what you're doing and that's what I think Tselikas was doing.

Why does it have to be Morton Smith? Why do you always attempt to create a false binary choice?

Why can't it be Seraphim?

"For you it's Morton Smith or you don't want to hear it."
Absurd deflection again, given that, for example, I have, here, recently--do you read?--
called Smith "an unreliable narrator."

... that the book was brought from outside Mar Saba into the monastery. Not sure you could ever pin Morton Smith as the only one who could have written the handwriting.